Saturday, March 09, 2013

This picture with this statement was posted on Facebook. There are a ton of implications all of them false.

I read the article
from which this broad pronouncement came and it makes me cringe. I love the
waygreen-energy articles are
written.The writer makes it sound as
though this solar energycould be
produced in sufficient quantities to replace other forms of energy.However, a careful reading of the first paragraph illustrates the
problem. The solar plant could only produce these numbers on two days, and only
during the "midday hours at a certain time of year."Which means that it could produce that energy
for only a few hours per day.Assume that it
was for four hours.Unfortunately, we
have a 24-hour day, half of which is essentially without sunlight at the location listed.

The author also
fails to take into account the transportation industry and also fails to
identify the nuclear power plants to which he is comparing output.France gets nearly 80 percent of its energy
from nuclear.They send their spent fuel
to Russia for recycling.Stationary
energy needs are a whole different species when one considers the needs for
vehicles.It is becoming apparent that
electrical vehicleshave been a major
bust. Consider the "Tesla" and the NYT's review of the vehicle.

Also if you will
note, the time of year was May 26, 2012, not December 26, 2012.The angle of the sun also has an impact
including the number of rain days and time of year. Germany has an average of
roughly 20 inches of rain per month, and snow during winter.This severely curtails production of solar
power over a sustained period.Yet the
Germans pay a premium (on top of the regular cost) of 5-billion dollars for the
privilege of a few hours of solar power during the day.Production per hour for this solar energy
becomes fundamentally unrealistic to the average person.

In paragraph 9, the
author admits that this was a particular "bright" period.That is a critical admission.

This production is
totally controlled by the weather.Perhaps if we allow global warmingto increase we would have more sunny days and thus more solar
production.But since Solar, wind and
bio-fuels are heavily subsidized by the government, that is to say by
taxpayers, hold on to your wallets.

The question then
becomes: Can we afford it or can ours or any economy afford it.The world is poised to hit some incredible
hard economic headwinds when the money printing binge bubble bursts and it will
burst.Would you want to be locked into
paying at least four to six times the price of electrical energy produced by
natural gas let's say, when it does?

Then there are the
environmental and visual impacts.Earth
beneath these mammoth-acreage solar plants is essentially sterile, but
apparently no one considers that anti-green side effect .Research also says it would take a solar or
wind plant about the size of Connecticut just to power just New York city
24/7.Solar, wind and bio-fuels have
proven that they are years in the future if feasible at all.Other sources are much more practical and
feasible and wouldn't bankrupt the average family.These so-called alternative energy sources are a sad
pipe-dream.

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Barack Obama is not
a man of compassion, he is a man without compassion.When it comes to Democratic capitalism which
has given Americans the greatest and broadestopportunities in the history of of mankind, he is a fiscal and economic
imbecile.He does not even try to
govern, all he does is campaign promoting subjugation and lets the unelected men behind
his curtain pull the levers of subservience.

His background is extremely similar to Bill Clinton in that he didn't
know his father.He craves
self-aggrandizement, sycophantic acolytes, unending accolades, perpetual adulation
and to be an emperor.Thankfully, he is
just a president and America will survive his demented American subjugation but
much the worse for wear.

He was accurate in
titling his book "Dreams of My Father."It is now obvious he has deified his father
and is madly attempting to implement his father's anti-democratic/socialistic
desires as he has interpreted them.He
is a man still seeking the approval of a father that will never come.

He thinks he's king
but he is only a flawed man trying to walk on a lake of red ink and calling it
a miracle.

The question is: Has
he so destroyed the American can-do psyche that we have become a perpetual population of takers?Have young
Americans bought the socialistic system that cedes their souls to the
government?Have social media sights
spawned a population so consumed with the concept of peace at any and all costs
that there is no room to fight for freedom?

Evan Sayet wrote
several years ago that we have become a nation that is no longer allowed to
discriminate.We are not allowed to even
discriminate between good and evil.In
fact, all acts of discrimination such asdefining rape or pedophilia as a person's sexual orientation, destruction
of the constitution, bestiality,
infanticide and generational theft are all discriminatory judgmentsand again, by definition, evil.Any type of definitive discriminatory
judgment cannot be tolerated by Obama or the left.Discrimination itself is the evil.

Well, you young
people, who spend your lives with a phone implemented in your ear are in for a
sad future if you chose to be totally non-discriminating.You may wind up with the peace you
perpetually promote in the quotes of "profundities" on your Facebook
pages with lofty goals of peace and love for all, but you will not have real
peace, unlimited opportunity or freedom.You will have sold your free-agencyfor less than a mess of pottage.

Monday, March 04, 2013

Robert Redford
portrayed Bob Woodward in the film All the President's men which portrayed the
Richard Nixon Watergate scandal.Woodward, who along with Carl Bernstein broke the story, was recentlyattacked by Barack Obama's mainstream media
minions for his accurate description in his book "The Price of
Politics" for revealing truthfully who created the Sequester …Barack Obama
himself.

The Watergate
scandal and Woodword's investigation took down Richard Nixon. At the time, John
Stockman, Nixon's budget director testified he told President Nixon that there was a
cancer growing on the Presidency.That
description is apt for today's president, Barack Obama.

The real difference
is that the cancer is not growing on the presidency, the presidency has become
the cancerand Obama is it's cause.